Oops, I discover this mail now.
> On 8 Jun 2020, at 22:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 6/8/2020 4:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 7 Jun 2020, at 23:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/7/2020 5:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>>>> The UDA *proves* that the fundamental reality = arithmetic. >>>>>>> All proofs are relative to their premises. You just assume arithmetic >>>>>>> is real. >>>>>> To assume arithmetic is real is ambiguous, if not non sensical. >>>>> A proposition cannot be ambiguous or nonsensical and also proven: "The >>>>> UDA *proves* that the fundamental reality = arithmetic.” >>>> But the “UDA proves that …” is not derived from “arithmetic is real”. It >>>> is derived from x + 0 = x, etc. >>>> >>>> You seem to confuse the theory/machine (and what its says) with the >>>> arithmetical reality. Those do not belong to the same level of >>>> explanation. The arithmetical reality proves nothing: it is not a theory. >>> I'm not confused. You made two statements that are implicitly >>> contradictory: >>> >>> (1) To assume arithmetic is real is ambiguous, if not non sensical. >> It is unclear if by “assuming arithmetic” you are are assuming 0 + 0 = 0, 1 >> + 0 = 1, etc. > > Ask yourself what you were assuming. It's your statement. So to be clear, I assume Mechanism (YD + CT), and from Mechanism, I derive that we cannot assume more than the axioms of classical logic + the non logical arithmetical axioms: 1) 0 ≠ s(x) 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y) 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 4) x+0 = x 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y) 6) x*0=0 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x I can assume much less, but this is OK. > >> or if you are assuming that the theory exists and is consistent (that is: >> assuming that a model of arithmetic exists, which when formalised assumes >> much more, like infinite sets, etc.). >> >> >> >>> (2) The UDA *proves* that the fundamental reality = arithmetic. >> >> UDA shows that we cannot use the assumption that there is a universe to >> explain why we see a universe. It shows rigorously that this idea does not >> work. > > But you can assume the UDA. You cannot assume a proof? You assume only a theory. The theory is shown above. The notion of computations is defined in the language of that theory, without adding any other assumption (except YD + CT at the meta-level, to help making sense of the relation between consciousness as used in the thought experience and its metamathematical definition). > Proofs are relative to their premises. Indeed. > > But that is beside my point: It is contradictory to say that to assume > proposition X is nonsense and also that proposition X can be proven. Absolutely, unless X is an axiom, in which case you can prove it in two/three words, like “see the axioms”. > Any proposition that can be proven (in any logical system) is a proposition > that can be consistently added to the axioms. That gives a redundant theory, but that is not a problem. I got the feeling that you seem to believe that I have both prove something and assume it, but I don’t see what you allude too. I just said that assuming arithmetic is fuzzy. I just assume Mechanism, and all what is needed to give sense to mechanism, which is just elementary arithmetic, without induction (RA). Then I define an observer as being anything, provably existing in very elmemrentary arithmetic, believing in much more than that: the same + the induction axioms (PA). RA can prove the existence of PA, and can mimic PA, but of course, RA remains much more cognitively weaker than PA. Bruno > > Brent > >> Of course, the neoplatonician udesrood this since long, but without the >> Church thesis, their argument (mainly the dream argument) is not >> constructive, and does not provide the means of verification. >> >> >> >> >>> I just made the contradiction explicit by pointing out that any proposition >>> that can be proven, cannot be ambiguous or nonsensical and hence can be >>> unambiguously assumed. >> >> The expression “assuming arithmetic” is unclear. With mechanism (which is an >> heavy assumption) we isolate by meta-reasoning a theory of everything which >> has very few assumptions: just 0 + 0 = 0, 1 + 0 = 1, etc. That is quite >> different than assuming that arithmetic is consistent, or make sense, etc. >> >> There is a subtlety here, no doubt. As we assume as much math as we needed >> at the meta-level, and for the internal phenomenology as well, but all this >> is done without assuming more than elementary arithmetic at the fundamental >> ontological level. Mechanism justifies such an approach. All the machine >> interviews in the context of RA, believes far more proposition than RA. >> Arithmetic explains why numbers believe (even “richly”) in much more than >> arithmetic, indeed, they believe in most of the objects that they are >> dreaming… >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >>> Brent >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/86b8bfb7-e637-1d3e-d9a4-0968a640972e%40verizon.net. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dd4743ed-4dde-16b6-46c5-05ac0a543836%40verizon.net. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8710BEF8-C866-4D43-9D81-B9B98B1583C9%40ulb.ac.be.
